OUR OPINION: Transportation bill better than nothing, but not good enough

SAN ANGELO, Texas - It was painful to watch, and the result is far from perfect, but in its third special session the Legislature finally passed a transportation bill last week. At least for that, Texans can feel grateful.

The plan calls for diverting half the money — about $1.2 billion a year — flowing into the Rainy Day Fund and using it for roads. Final approval will have to come from voters in a constitutional amendment election in November 2014.

It’s essentially the same bill that would have passed in the regular session if Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst had done as its sponsors requested and moved it ahead of Sen. Wendy Davis’ filibuster of an abortion bill.

But then some members had second thoughts, and the required two-thirds support couldn’t be mustered in two special sessions. The measure seemed doomed, but with some tweaks it squeaked by on the fourth try, probably in part because lawmakers were ready to go home after eight months in Austin.

There are problems with the bill, most notably that it’s inadequate. The Texas Department of Transportation says it needs an additional $4 billion a year just to maintain existing highways — and with the population growth the state is certain to continue experiencing, obviously more is needed than just that.

Lawmakers rejected responsible proposals to help bridge the funding gap, including San Angelo Rep. Drew Darby’s call for a vehicle registration fee increase and a rise in the gas tax that hasn’t changed in 22 years.

Another flaw is that, while the $8 billion Rainy Day Fund doesn’t need to keep growing by $2 billion a year, the oil and gas production that fuels it isn’t a certain or practical long-term source for transportation funding.

Still, assuming voters assent, lawmakers have bought time to craft a smart, responsible, comprehensive plan to pay for the roads we need. First, some are going to have to get past their aversion to tax or fee increases. They say their approach is conservative, but it’s hardly conservative to borrow money to build and maintain roads.

And if they want to try to make the case that it’s unnecessary to pay for the roads the state needs to efficiently carry out its commerce, let’s hear that argument. But if they’re successful, it’s bad news for the rest of us.